Cheap but decent lowrider rack

[Trigger]

In an ideal world I'd just stump up for a Tubus lowrider, but they're far too spendy for me. Is there anything cheap and good around? I've seen the Bor Yeuh at about £15-20, is that all there is in that price bracket?

[The Mechanic]

Tubus rack are high initial cost be very cost effective. There are guarantteed for 30 years and are very unlikely to let you down on tour. Go on, treat yourself.

[PeterBL]

I haven't got anything to compare with, but I have these and find no problems: http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/xtre ... aid:114147

[tramponabike]

Avenir Low Rider Alloy Front Pannier Rack £15.63

I have no experience of these but found them while looking for rear racks:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avenir-Rider-Alloy-Front-Pannier/dp/B000RY0TUA/ref=pd_cp_sg_0

[gaz]

Please read CJ's remarks in this thread before considering either of the two linked above or any other budget low rider.

[CJ]

Please read CJ's remarks in this thread before considering either of the two linked above or any other budget low rider.

Yes please do read that thread. And please, for your own safety, do not use any front carrier where the side panels are not braced against sideways flapping by:

EITHER: an over-the-wheel strut that joins them together.

OR: a strut on each side panel that links its top front corner to an additional fixing bolt on the inner side of each fork blade, opposite the main fixing on the outer side.

Here is a picture of what happens to a bike when an un-braced front carrier suddenly comes loose enough to waggle into the wheel.

The rider woke up in hospital.

[Trigger]

Don't things like this have to pass any European safety regulations? especially stuff sold in Germany!

I'll accept the words of wisdom though and can see the issues with cheap racks, although the one from Rose Versand looks to be pretty sturdy. It may be a case of having to save up for a Tubus, yet more expense.

[CJ]

No, there are no standards for front carriers.

When I helped to write the European Standard on luggage carriers (BS-EN14872:2006), I argued strongly for front carriers to be included in its scope, with proposals for how they should be tested. Unfortunately the other countries' experts were not interested. They argued that these "new" tests would need to be validated - even though they were simply derived from the tests already agreed for rear carriers - and that this process would be too expensive - considering the relatively small volume of sales of front carriers compared to rear - and delay publication of the standard.

[rualexander]

I have a Tubus Tara front rack now but happily used and abused a Blackburn Lowrider for fifteen years before it got mangled by airline baggage handlers a few years ago. There have been some comments that Blackburn racks are not made as well as they used to be, but they come with a lifetime guarantee.

[Trigger]

Any thoughts on the Tortec Expedition? I have the expedition rear and I'm really happy with it.

Also what's the best way to fit with mudguards, mudguard stay on first or last?

[Cyclenut]

Any thoughts on the Tortec Expedition? I have the expedition rear and I'm really happy with it.

Bracing strut is too thin at point of attachment to front corners of side panels. Very similar to the Vetta carrier mentioned in that other thread. I would not trust it.

Also what's the best way to fit with mudguards, mudguard stay on first or last?

The luggage carrier must always be snug to the frame. The mudguard goes wherever it can after satisfying that requirement. If it can't: choose another carrier.

[CREPELLO]

Any thoughts on the Tortec Expedition? I have the expedition rear and I'm really happy with it.

Bracing strut is too thin at point of attachment to front corners of side panels. Very similar to the Vetta carrier mentioned in that other thread. I would not trust it.

That Tortec rack looks like a right dogs dinner, as does the Avenir one pictured further up the thread. I can't quite believe that some people can earn money designing such work of the devil

Here is a picture of what happens to a bike when an un-braced front carrier suddenly comes loose enough to waggle into the wheel.

Damaged fork small.JPG

The rider woke up in hospital.

Interesting to see a failure on a Galaxy with Blackburn style racks. My Galaxy failed TWO pairs of Reynold forks with those very same racks, before the third unicrown forks resolved the inherent design problem of that lethal combination. Both forks failed around the upper rack mount, The first, the reynolds tubing cracked because of the twisting forces going through that point. The second, the mount just peeled away - contaminated joint, the fork was only two weeks old!

The problem with that set up is the lower mount is via a P-clip which isn't very rigid. That meant that the racks flexed more easily, all that force going through the upper mount. No wonder they failed. The uni-crown forks were much more rigid. Why? I believe it's because the upper mount was directly through the middle of the fork blade. But having mounts at the front or rear of the blade means that the twisting force is amplified around a larger circle, if that makes sense.

Provided that the lower mounts are rigid enough to take more of this twisting force, there shouldn't be a failure at the upper mounts. I would have no qualms around using those Blackburn/Bor Yeuh racks with the direct through blade mounts usually seen on uni-crown forks, but only with a sturdy lower mount. Alternatively, if I used those Galaxy forks again, then I would engineer or source a rigid block for the lower mount.

[Cyclenut]

Interesting to see a failure on a Galaxy with Blackburn style racks.

The racks were not fitted properly, to both sides of the upper fixing. The bike shop had foolishly pressed the inner bracing struts against their side panels and simply bolted them to the outsides of the fork - like those other racks we've seen pictures of here that are intended to be bolted simply to the outside of the fork blades without any bracing! See this for more info.

A wrongly fitted Blackburn Custom is admittedly somewhat more waggly than the Avenir for example. But even a rightly fitted Blackburn is on the safety limit IMHO.

Stiffening up the lower fixing may help - but only a teeny bit. The surface your suggested block bears against is a small threaded eye or braze-on. It offers a very narrow support for the block, so that forces tending to rock the block have a strong pry-bar action upon the 5mm screw securing it. This will easily loosen the screw: unless the side panel is otherwise stiffly braced against these shaking and flapping motions, which tend to rotate each side panel about an axis through it's two main fixing points.

The lower fixing of the Blackburn Custom Lowrider is nevertheless it's weakmess. That weedy clip has only a tenuous engagement with those shallow indents. I've seen lots that after a bit of wear and tear simply cannot be tightened enough to stop the rod slipping through. I've seen bodges with tape and racks allowed to droop until the pannier C-of-G simply hangs below the upper fixing.

Blame for the tearing of the fork blade around the braze-on should be laid however, at the door of the chap who decided to braze a noggin onto the front of the fork blade rather than drilling and brazing a tube through it's middle. The middle of the blade carries little stress, unlike the front and back surfaces. And rocking the noggin obviously only adds to those stresses. A tube through the middle of the blade however, has none of those problems. But it seems that designers and builders just can't be bothered to do the job right these days - not when it comes to touring requirements anyway. Simply brazing must be cheaper than drilling and brazing.

[CREPELLO]

Blame for the tearing of the fork blade around the braze-on should be laid however, at the door of the chap who decided to braze a noggin onto the front of the fork blade rather than drilling and brazing a tube through it's middle. The middle of the blade carries little stress, unlike the front and back surfaces. And rocking the noggin obviously only adds to those stresses. A tube through the middle of the blade however, has none of those problems. But it seems that designers and builders just can't be bothered to do the job right these days - not when it comes to touring requirements anyway. Simply brazing must be cheaper than drilling and brazing.

My thoughts exactly. I still feel that the uni-crown forks with the mount through the blade offer much improvement over the typical set up as seen on the fork seen on that Galaxy. I remember observing the amount of 'flapping my panniers would do over rough road surfaces and thinking they looked like little flapping chicken wings That movement was significantly reduced with the uni-crown set up.

It's bizarre that the uni-crown arrangement is often seen on lower spec bikes which will probably never see low rider racks, whereas the higher spec Reynolds forks seen on the good tourers tend to have the braze on mount. My King of Mercia has another mount type, which is essentially a threaded spacer brazed on the outside of the fork. At least with this type of mount it would be difficult or fool hardy to attempt to attach a rack without the hoop as there is no method of attaching the inside top rail. (But I'm never likely to use this mount anyway as it's my day ride bike)

[fatboy]

I want to get low-riders but this thread is giving me the wobbles! My first choice would be Custom lowrider (either Blackburn of Bor Yeuh copy) but I hear that fitting bags can be a pain. Also my "noggin" is on the front of my fork as above. I am wondering if a standard one with a hoop using P-clips or bolting to one side of the noggin might not be better.

Don't really want to fork out for Tubus if I can avoid it as this will be for infrequent light use.